Ethics of adoption

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an honest question. How can parents be coerced into placing their child for adoption?

They are all coerced "in hindsight"

Hmm. Let's see. Vulnerable woman with little or no social support turns to a deceptively "neutral" agency that lauds the good act of placing one's child for adoption and warns of ruin should the woman choose to keep and raise the kid. Abortion, of course, is out of the question.

Seriously?

You are ignorant if you think EVERY agency acts this way. I purposefully chose a Catholic agency b/c they approach this from a mental health perspective and are not for profit. They are not in need of babies to "sell" to stay in business. They actually DO try to find birth parents the resources they need to parent effectively if that is their choice and they explore that option with every client who approaches them.

John Roberts adopted two children from Ireland and Irish law prohibits children from leaving Ireland. Money and power scream. The Catholic church is the worst offender for stealing babies from unwed mothers.

What the hell are you yammering on about?

Chief Justice Roberts adopted two children, via somewhat ambiguous means.

http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/2005/08/the_roberts_ado.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an honest question. How can parents be coerced into placing their child for adoption?

They are all coerced "in hindsight"

Hmm. Let's see. Vulnerable woman with little or no social support turns to a deceptively "neutral" agency that lauds the good act of placing one's child for adoption and warns of ruin should the woman choose to keep and raise the kid. Abortion, of course, is out of the question.

Seriously?

You are ignorant if you think EVERY agency acts this way. I purposefully chose a Catholic agency b/c they approach this from a mental health perspective and are not for profit. They are not in need of babies to "sell" to stay in business. They actually DO try to find birth parents the resources they need to parent effectively if that is their choice and they explore that option with every client who approaches them.

John Roberts adopted two children from Ireland and Irish law prohibits children from leaving Ireland. Money and power scream. The Catholic church is the worst offender for stealing babies from unwed mothers.

What the hell are you yammering on about?

Chief Justice Roberts adopted two children, via somewhat ambiguous means.

http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/2005/08/the_roberts_ado.html

Well then, we should for sure stop all adoptions. Especially on the word of a blogger.

[Anonymous]

Adoption is truly awful. Sometimes love is unfair and people can't have bio kids. The solution is not stealing other people's children under the guise of giving them a better life. I'm sickened by the concept.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Adoption is truly awful. Sometimes love is unfair and people can't have bio kids. The solution is not stealing other people's children under the guise of giving them a better life. I'm sickened by the concept.

You are under the mistaken notion that everyone are capable of and want to raise their biological children, but hey, those kid's lives don't matter because you are sickened. You know what? Your bias , lack of understanding of reality, and complete disregard for the welfare of those children disgust me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adoption is truly awful. Sometimes love is unfair and people can't have bio kids. The solution is not stealing other people's children under the guise of giving them a better life. I'm sickened by the concept.

You are under the mistaken notion that everyone are capable of and want to raise their biological children, but hey, those kid's lives don't matter because you are sickened. You know what? Your bias , lack of understanding of reality, and complete disregard for the welfare of those children disgust me.

There are two sides to adoption - the good where there are ethical adoptions where birthparents did choose adoption for their children and the other side, where kids are basically stolen or bought and families are losing kids that should have not been placed for adoption. We've been on both sides of it, which is why I no longer support adoption in its current state. Reality is most people adopt to meet their needs, not the child's needs. You have a need to be a parent and adoption for what ever reason meets that need. If you were doing it for the child, you'd consider foster-adopt children or older international kids who have significant needs. Even then, sometimes one can question the motive as with foster-adopt, its free and often kids come with a sizable stipend and health care till they are adults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There are two sides to adoption - the good where there are ethical adoptions where birthparents did choose adoption for their children and the other side, where kids are basically stolen or bought and families are losing kids that should have not been placed for adoption. We've been on both sides of it, which is why I no longer support adoption in its current state. Reality is most people adopt to meet their needs, not the child's needs. You have a need to be a parent and adoption for what ever reason meets that need. If you were doing it for the child, you'd consider foster-adopt children or older international kids who have significant needs. Even then, sometimes one can question the motive as with foster-adopt, its free and often kids come with a sizable stipend and health care till they are adults.

do you think people have biological children to meet the unborn child's needs or to meet their own needs to parent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adoption is truly awful. Sometimes love is unfair and people can't have bio kids. The solution is not stealing other people's children under the guise of giving them a better life. I'm sickened by the concept.

You are under the mistaken notion that everyone are capable of and want to raise their biological children, but hey, those kid's lives don't matter because you are sickened. You know what? Your bias , lack of understanding of reality, and complete disregard for the welfare of those children disgust me.

There are two sides to adoption - the good where there are ethical adoptions where birthparents did choose adoption for their children and the other side, where kids are basically stolen or bought and families are losing kids that should have not been placed for adoption. We've been on both sides of it, which is why I no longer support adoption in its current state. Reality is most people adopt to meet their needs, not the child's needs. You have a need to be a parent and adoption for what ever reason meets that need. If you were doing it for the child, you'd consider foster-adopt children or older international kids who have significant needs. Even then, sometimes one can question the motive as with foster-adopt, its free and often kids come with a sizable stipend and health care till they are adults.

I'm an adoptive mom and I freely admit that I adopted to fulfill my needs, but that doesn't mean that the adoption was wrong. I am not equipped to be a good parent to an older child with significant needs, nor would I set myself up to repeatedly fall in love with children who may be taken away (fostering). However, the fact remains, that if you took away adoption, my children would be in foster care or raised by people who didn't want to do that at this point in their lives. I cannot believe how selfish people who want to get rid of adoption are and how the only people you care about are the people who actually had a choice in the situation - the birth parents. Screw the kids, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are two sides to adoption - the good where there are ethical adoptions where birthparents did choose adoption for their children and the other side, where kids are basically stolen or bought and families are losing kids that should have not been placed for adoption. We've been on both sides of it, which is why I no longer support adoption in its current state. Reality is most people adopt to meet their needs, not the child's needs. You have a need to be a parent and adoption for what ever reason meets that need. If you were doing it for the child, you'd consider foster-adopt children or older international kids who have significant needs. Even then, sometimes one can question the motive as with foster-adopt, its free and often kids come with a sizable stipend and health care till they are adults.

do you think people have biological children to meet the unborn child's needs or to meet their own needs to parent?

+1. Poster also ignores the fact that not everyone who adopts does so for infertility reasons. Moreover, not everyone is emotionally or financially capable of adoptions a child with special needs. This not mean that they are not or would not be a good parent. It means they are recognizing what is in the best interest of a child by not taking on more than they can emotionally or financially handle. You are willfully ignorant if you think there are babies and you children who are legitimately available for adoption. Should these children be left to orphanages or made street kids until they are damaged enough to fit you jaded scenario?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh my goodness. Fourteen pages of trying to reason with a bunch of hateful ignoramuses? People, you know there's no getting the last word with these ya-hoos, no convincing them to admit to the slightest possibility that there might be room for considering other options besides "NO ADOPTION EVER. I WOULDN'T DO IT SO NO ONE ELSE HAD BETTER EVEN CONSIDER IT"...right?

Oh for heaven's sake! There are multiple people posting here about adoption, with varying degrees of reasonableness on both sides.

I posted way back when and said, AS AN ADOPTIVE PARENT, I think private infant adoption -- not talking about foster care, now -- is a solution in search of a problem -- the "demand" for healthy babies far outstrips the "supply," and the people who are eager to adopt are generally (not universally, but generally) more affluent, which means they are able to exert more influence over the process, which (I believe) does a real disservice to women who would like to parent but face obstacles.

During my adoption process, I encountered a ton of prospective adoptive parents who would say straight out, "We're paying the agency's fees, we're their client, they owe it to us to do x." And if, on the other side, the pregnant woman and/or the child up for adoption were also someone's client, that would be fair. But the kids aren't paying anybody anything, and plenty of adoption agencies will tell pregnant women things like, "You don't need to hire a lawyer, we take care of that for you!" like that's a good thing.

I don't think there should be NO ADOPTION EVER!

I think we need better services so women aren't forced by circumstance to place their child for adoption when they really want to parent. (I'm the one who posted the three-point list of resources. And I think it's ironic that the people who criticize that list by invoking "responsibility" are the ones trying to disclaim any responsibility for their fellow citizens.)

I think we should abolish private adoption, and all adoption should occur through the foster care system (which, granted, needs a LOT of improvement).

I would also say that IVF and similar procedures should be covered by insurance, as a matter of mandate, so that people who really want the infant experience can get that without contributing to an industry that subtly (and sometimes unsubtly) pressures women to relinquish their kids.

I love, love, love my adopted daughter. And if she gets pregnant at 16, I am going to back her to the hilt in whatever choice she makes, whether that's abortion or adoption or parenting her child. Because as much as I love my kid, I think it's awful that her mom didn't get that kind of support from her own family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh my goodness. Fourteen pages of trying to reason with a bunch of hateful ignoramuses? People, you know there's no getting the last word with these ya-hoos, no convincing them to admit to the slightest possibility that there might be room for considering other options besides "NO ADOPTION EVER. I WOULDN'T DO IT SO NO ONE ELSE HAD BETTER EVEN CONSIDER IT"...right?

Oh for heaven's sake! There are multiple people posting here about adoption, with varying degrees of reasonableness on both sides.

I posted way back when and said, AS AN ADOPTIVE PARENT, I think private infant adoption -- not talking about foster care, now -- is a solution in search of a problem -- the "demand" for healthy babies far outstrips the "supply," and the people who are eager to adopt are generally (not universally, but generally) more affluent, which means they are able to exert more influence over the process, which (I believe) does a real disservice to women who would like to parent but face obstacles.

During my adoption process, I encountered a ton of prospective adoptive parents who would say straight out, "We're paying the agency's fees, we're their client, they owe it to us to do x." And if, on the other side, the pregnant woman and/or the child up for adoption were also someone's client, that would be fair. But the kids aren't paying anybody anything, and plenty of adoption agencies will tell pregnant women things like, "You don't need to hire a lawyer, we take care of that for you!" like that's a good thing.

I don't think there should be NO ADOPTION EVER!

I think we need better services so women aren't forced by circumstance to place their child for adoption when they really want to parent. (I'm the one who posted the three-point list of resources. And I think it's ironic that the people who criticize that list by invoking "responsibility" are the ones trying to disclaim any responsibility for their fellow citizens.)

I think we should abolish private adoption, and all adoption should occur through the foster care system (which, granted, needs a LOT of improvement).

I would also say that IVF and similar procedures should be covered by insurance, as a matter of mandate, so that people who really want the infant experience can get that without contributing to an industry that subtly (and sometimes unsubtly) pressures women to relinquish their kids.

I love, love, love my adopted daughter. And if she gets pregnant at 16, I am going to back her to the hilt in whatever choice she makes, whether that's abortion or adoption or parenting her child. Because as much as I love my kid, I think it's awful that her mom didn't get that kind of support from her own family.

You are making the mistake of extrapolating your experience to all other adoption experience which shows a lack of mature and critical thought. You are also not looking beyond the limited scope of domestic adoption to address the needs of children in throw-away societies that culturally do not adopt and seem to be conflagrating private adoption experience with agency adoption. BTW, i have had experience with foster care and I would not wish that hell on any child no matter how flawed the private adoption system may currently be and I can't believe any moral, caring human being would wish that on any child. No amount of money or reform will fix this system to make foster care the preferable option. I am astounded and dismayed at your narrow view.

[Anonymous]

Adoption should be a "Hobson's Choice," meani,g those wishing to adopt take the first child available irrespective of age, health, race, disabilities. If this were the case, adoptions would cease immediately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Adoption is truly awful. Sometimes love is unfair and people can't have bio kids. The solution is not stealing other people's children under the guise of giving them a better life. I'm sickened by the concept.

Huh? Wut?

Adoption is life saving, for both mothers and children. It's a gift to each party, and a tough choice on both ends.

I've been thinking a lot about my life planning and, as an older mom, what should become of my children if something ever happened to me prior to reaching maturity. I am blessed with a life long friend who would do a magnificent job of caring for my children. She'd love them as her own, make different choices, honor me, invest deeply in them. I'm not saying this is the same for women who are placing their children up for adoption, but I do wonder if this peace of mind is something we might share. What a comfort it must be to parents in difficult circumstances to place their child(ren) in loving homes, especially in the case of open adoptions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Adoption should be a "Hobson's Choice," meani,g those wishing to adopt take the first child available irrespective of age, health, race, disabilities. If this were the case, adoptions would cease immediately.

What the heck is wrong with you? Children are not fungible. Why would you take away a birth parent's right to choose the family for her child? Why would you purposefully allow poor matches? For what purpose? You anti-adopters have nothing to ADD or help the situation, you just want to take away options for people who need them simply because you don't.

[Anonymous]

No one is advocating to get rid of adoption but there needs to be far more laws that are universal for all states and far more oversight to ensure ethical adoptions. We did not set out to adopt a special needs child. We did and it's no big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adoption should be a "Hobson's Choice," meani,g those wishing to adopt take the first child available irrespective of age, health, race, disabilities. If this were the case, adoptions would cease immediately.

What the heck is wrong with you? Children are not fungible. Why would you take away a birth parent's right to choose the family for her child? Why would you purposefully allow poor matches? For what purpose? You anti-adopters have nothing to ADD or help the situation, you just want to take away options for people who need them simply because you don't.

Birth parents have horrible things done to them, like ours did...once you have been in the other side, you will understand.